Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38520494›Full record

ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2024

IPACK Block Efficacy for Acute Pain Management after Total Knee Replacement: A Review.

William C Upshaw, John M Richey, Joseph P Tassin, Mark V Frolov, Benjamin C Miller, Aaron J Kaye, Jeffrey Sterritt, Charles J Fox, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sahar Shekoohi and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of Dexmedetomidine on Analgesia and Inflammatory Response in Knee Surgery: A Study of IPACK and ACB Techniques.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

William C UpshawSchool of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
John M RicheySchool of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Joseph P TassinSchool of Dentistry, Louisiana State University Health Science Center, New Orleans, LA, 70119, USA.
Mark V FrolovSchool of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Benjamin C MillerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Aaron J KayeWakeMed Anesthesia, 3000 New Bern Ave, Raleigh, NC, 27610, USA.
Jeffrey SterrittDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Charles J FoxDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Shahab AhmadzadehDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Sahar ShekoohiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA. sahar.shekoohi@lsuhs.edu.
Alan D KayeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Neurosciences, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport · USWakeMed · USLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPatients often experience a significant degree of knee pain following total knee replacement (TKR). To alleviate this pain, nerve blocks may be performed such as the adductor canal block (ACB). However, ACBs are unable to relieve pain originating from the posterior region of the knee. A new type of nerve block known as the IPACK block may be used in conjunction with ACBs as it is designed to inhibit nerve branches innervating this area. In this article, we examine the rationale behind the IPACK procedure, how it is performed, and clinical trials examining its efficacy. RECENT

findings5 of the 7 clinical trials examined in this article showed the IPACK + ACB block to show superior efficacy in treating pain following TKR compared to other blocks. These blocks included PMDI+ACB, SPANK+ACB, PAI+ACB, ACB alone, and SCAB. 2 of the 7 clinical trials showed the IPACK + ACB to be less effective in managing patients pain following TKR compared to other blocks which included the CACB and 4 in 1 block. In most instances, the IPACK + ACB showed superior efficacy in managing patients' pain following TKR when compared to other types of nerve blocks. This was determined by measuring usage of opioids, reported postoperative pain, and length of hospital stays following TKR. Thus, we suppose the IPACK block may be used in conjunction with the ACB to effectively reduce patient's pain following TKR.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeNerve BlockPain ManagementPostoperative PainAcute PainHumansTreatment OutcomeAnalgesic treatmentIPACK blockPeripheral nerve blockPostoperative painTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID38520494
OpenAlexW4393114359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.